Something to Think About for the New Year

Something to Think About for the New Year

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

January 1st, 2007, 2:21 pm #1

2007 brings us into another year of the postmodern Church. Here is a timely essay by John Waddey to combat the heresies espoused by those of the Change Movement:

Dear Friends in Christ:

Today's lesson deals with a strategy of the promoters of change to justify what they are doing. It is called "moral equivalency." To be victorious in this struggle for survival we must understand the strategies of our enemy so we can meet and defeat them. Please share this lesson with others in Christ. May the New Year bring blessings to you and to the church we love. John Waddey

**********

FAULTY THINKING

One of the strategies used by promoters of postmodernism is "moral equivalency." First, they assume nothing is absolutely right or wrong. For them, the answer to every spiritual, ethical or moral question is relative, depending on the person and his circumstances. When one asserts some non-negotiable truth relating to Christianity, the postmodern thinker immediately seeks to counter it by citing some flaw or weakness in the person making the assertion or some virtue in those excluded thereby. In his mind he has thus neutralized the exclusive biblical principle. This amoral mind set has made its way into the church via the change movement. Below are some examples of this faulty way of thinking.

* They insist, "We cannot be certain we are correct in our views regarding immersion and salvation." They argue, "After all, God is love and may choose to save the sincere person even if he is unimmersed. Such a view would mean that millions of unimmersed souls would be lost and we cannot conceive of such a thing. There are so few of us who believe in the necessity of baptism, and there have been millions who did not understand it that way. We cannot afford to be dogmatic." That God's word plainly makes man's salvation the consequence of faith and baptism (Mark 16:16) is not allowed to override the assumptions of this faulty thinking.

* They say, "We cannot condemn denominational divisions because we have had our own share of divisions within the church of Christ." They assume because some misguided brother or some malcontent has caused division therefore the church of Christ is no better than a denomination. The fact is they see nothing inherently wrong with denominationalism. They seek to be accepted by their denominational neighbors. They attempt to justify their sinful conduct by pointing to the failures of other Christians. Two wrongs never equal right. They are simply two wrongs. Paul condemned those who cause divisions among Christ's people and so should we (Rom. 16:17-18; I Cor. 1:10-15; 3:1-4).

* They reason, "We cannot insist that the church of Christ is indeed the church which Christ established and of which he is head and savior." They argue, "Why, to say that implies other religious bodies are not Christ's church. How dare we to be so exclusive?" To the postmodern mind all religious bodies are of equal value. That is called pluralism. They like to say, "Our congregations are imperfect when measured by the New Testament. A flawed church cannot be His exclusive church." They point to the nice people in denominational churches and good deeds they do, and conclude it would be arrogant on our part to think that Christ has only one church and we are that church. Verses that plainly teach that Christ established and has only one church (Matt. 16:18 Eph.4:4-5) are brushed aside in deference to the postmodern approach to such matters.

* They are determined to put women in positions of public leadership in their congregations. When we cite I Cor. 14:33-34 and I Tim. 2:11-12, they justify their disobedience by saying that some Christians have been overly restrictive in forbidding women to preach or have authority over men, therefore their decision to ignore Christ's regulations is not really that bad. They argue that women are as smart as men, equally as gifted, that our new age demands they be given this opportunity. That Scripture says "No" carries no weight with postmodern thinkers.

* Some have announced their desire to reunite with Christian Churches. When asked about their use of unauthorized musical instruments in worship, they reply, "Well we have our traditions, therefore we should overlook their instruments for the sake of unity." They reason for the two groups to continue on separate paths perpetrates division and unity is preferable to division. They close their eyes to, deny or seek to rationalize the unlawful practices by the Christian Churches that originally caused the division. All of those factors still exist. Since to the postmodern mind truth and rightness are relative matters and since nothing is absolutely wrong, such matters should be overlooked.

When reading the mindless prattle of the postmodern writers one is tempted to wonder, "What have they been smoking?" Truth makes us free (John 8:32). God's Word is truth (John 17:17). That sacred truth is as unchanging as is the God who spoke it (Mal. 3:6).

John Waddey
*****************
Happy New Year to all! Dr. Bill Crump

Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

January 2nd, 2007, 3:09 am #2

<FONT Color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>There are those “in the brotherhood” [probably … no longer the case]—and have posted here—who honestly and sincerely believe:
  • (a) That the ones who still cling to “the old paths” [labeled as the "conservatives" or "traditionalists"] are not only “IN ERROR” but are also “IN SERIOUS ERROR”

    … and conversely …
  • (b) That the ones [they themselves] who have DEVIATED from the old paths—the “progressives” and “liberals” are the enlightened ones, and they know the truth.
How convincing are "they" who make such claims?

After all, they are the postmodern, neo-religious enthusiasts and participants of the "new world order" of the ecumenical religion. Hmmm! They don't seem to be aware of this misguidance.

OK ... let's get to the point. And, i.e., these are the ones who are attempting to CHANGE God’s directives for the church in order to convict and convince anyone: (1) either that one church is as good as another (2) or that there is one universal church that is comprised of all professing Christians [wonder ... if the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, Christian Scientists are included].

Oops! Or, should the Roman Catholic Church, claiming itself to be the one universal church, really be the ecumenical church? If not, why not?

The primary leaders of this postmodern truth-deviant and culture-driven church growth schemes are Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, et al, of the Community Church Movement. They have a very strong following from all religious denominations. Sadly and unfortunately, these men have the strong support of CHANGE AGENTS operating in our brotherhood. [If you need to identify who these men are, please read several threads that discuss these men and their activities on this forum.]

Alright, then, we now know that a poster "Servant," among others, proudly teaches that it is OK for inanimate, lifeless musical instruments to participate in the gathering of the saints. Apparently, Servant has very easily forgotten that more than 99% of the congregations of Christ's church [the mainstream] do NOT allow inanimate objects participating with living Christians in the assembly.

So, who is deviating from that which he still claims to be a member of? Does he really honestly consider virtually all the congregations of the church he is affiliating with (that do not use instruments of music) "IN SERIOUS ERROR," as he has previously alluded to?

Furthermore, Servant has expressed that he "would rather have a root canal than to listen to Waddey ... [that he] is on the same corrosive antiChristian line of thinking as that of Ken Sublett ... [that] Waddey is like a lot of misguided other Christians who spout out preferrences [sic] as if they were Scripture...."

Again, Servant, influenced very strongly by postmodern theologies, probably doesn't even know our heritage, but is apparently opposed to what Christians have believed as teachings from the Scripture in previous generations. Or, is he really a descendant of beliefs and teachings of the Christian Church?

Servant, aren't you a member of the Christian Church? Or, are you simply claiming to be a member of the church of Jesus Christ in order to promote the agenda of the Christian Church? And sow discord? Let's be honest. And if you desire to be honest, you must recognize that more than 99% of the congregations are not on your side. This means that you are the one who is an oddball—the non-conformist—here, and not in the majority that you condemn to be "in serious error."

Finally, looking at Waddey's list of faulty assumptions, how many more does Servant disagree with Waddey and the majority of members of the church?

Donnie</font>
Quote
Share

Kenneth Sublett
Kenneth Sublett

January 2nd, 2007, 2:40 pm #3


Donnie: <font color=red>"Alright, then, we now know that a poster "Servant," among others, proudly teaches that it is OK for inanimate, lifeless musical instruments to participate in the gathering of the saints. Apparently, Servant has very easily forgotten that more than 99% of the congregations of Christ's church [the mainstream] do NOT allow inanimate objects participating with living Christians in the assembly.</font>

Mike Cope affirming Leroy Garrett affirming Rich Atchley in 'twisting' all of the music passages to say that God COMMANDED the use of instruments and we should not disobey, notes only about half a dozen out of maybe 1350 congregations have gone LEGALISTIC meaning MECHANICAL. Most of these are sabbatarian ALSO and only slowly ooze into Sunday morning. These are the churches of those who set out intending to CONVERT all churches of Christ. Probably all of these are mega-churches needing financal rescue. You could probably find half a dozen preachers who would take the name CHRIST off and put the name of JUDAS up if they could. Only brave defense kept two biggies in Nashville from going "fully" instrumental so they do a legalistic end-run by using A Capella (a castrato in the Sistine) or organic MACHINES. Capella being the the name of the female GOAT. I am in shock: I expected fully half to go MECHANICAL or LEGALISTIC because the REMNANT of the many millions of Jews seems to have been the 120 resident Jews who didn't get BURNED UP.

The word ORGANON defining MACHINES including musical instruments includes the word ERGON from "ergs" meaning units of WORK DONE. Therefore, it is proper to reSTORE calling them "Mechanical Instruments of Worship" because they perform WORKS which defines LEGALISM. Because instruments were added (reliably) about 1200 years TOO LATE they are, in fact, TRADITIONS OF MEN. To their eternal credit, the organs were normally an "aside" by the local professional musician who came to the building where churches had been GIFTED with organs to compose. He later played preludes, intermissions and recessionals. They NEVER sang congregationally with instrumental accompaniment. Therefore, the tiny DRIPS of people always defecting or just going out of the "churching" business has been a confessed miserable disappointment by those whose GOAL was to violently destroy the Waddey's of the world even for stating simple facts. What we see is fulfilment of Women and Children meaning "women and the effeminate" ruling over you.

I peek in over "there" once in a while and I wonder how they know to prefer dung to Waddey? May be the fulfillment of John's message: Circe gave her name to the CHURCH and in John 's secret message she is the Mother of Harlots whose singers, musicians and all craftspeople are OUTED by John as SORCERERS who HAD deceived the whole world. They had PUT OUT THE CANDLES and when they take Christ off the sign it is in fact, the one and only visit of Jesus Christ to pick up HIS candlestick of the 'seven spirits of knowledge' none of which come out of a wineskin. After Circe used SORCERY including music, she fed them on "sermons" made of hand-patted DUNG patty cakes. Ummm, they grunted: better than a Waddey sandwitch!
Quote
Share